# AM-RP-001: proposed recovery rehearsal

Author: Anant Mishra. Prepared 3 November 2026.

**Preparation only. Five planned scenarios, zero executed.** This guide is not a runbook verified against a machine and contains no commands to change a service.

## Before execution

Obtain authorized isolated-environment access and a test window. Name the operator and reviewer. Inventory compatible model/tokenizer, runtime, application, prompt, embedding, document and index revisions; retain artifact hashes and access dependencies without publishing secrets. Preserve current authoritative permissions. Use synthetic documents and test identities. Declare recovery-time and recoverable-data-age objectives and their measurement boundaries before running anything.

## Proposed scenarios

1. Restore the declared compatible release; capture artifact checks and application acceptance evidence.
2. Remove or mismatch one artifact; expect a visible hold rather than silent substitution.
3. Supply an incompatible index/embedding combination; expect rejection before ordinary use.
4. Restore an old document snapshot after a synthetic permission revocation; expect current authorization to deny retrieval before restricted text enters model context.
5. Start the process but fail an acceptance task; expect readiness to remain on hold.

These are expectations, never observed results. Also check source links, stale cached answers, missing information, supported answers and citations. An available endpoint cannot certify those properties. Capture failed and abandoned attempts as well as any successful restoration.

## Evidence record

Copy recovery-evidence.template.json into a separate actual record only when execution is authorized. Keep the published template blank. Record environment and release-manifest references, actual steps, timestamps, traces, deviations, results and accountable review. Do not fill observations from expected behavior. Reject a rehearsal conclusion whose supporting records are absent. A schema or checklist check establishes no recovery effectiveness.

## Sources and limits

NIST contingency planning: https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/34/r1/upd1/final

vLLM reproducibility: https://docs.vllm.ai/en/latest/usage/reproducibility/

Kubernetes probe concepts: https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/workloads/pods/probes/

Reviewed 3 November 2026. These references support planning distinctions, not this design's effectiveness. No DGX, model, assistant, restoration, permission scenario or recovery objective has been tested. AI assistance was used in preparation. No empirical publication, identifier, peer review or Scholar indexing is claimed.